CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5442DDD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s868B1AA5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75B8D6BE { width:182.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4103/18 Yuriy Vyacheslavovich SHELUKHA against Russia and 16 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   April 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications insofar as covered by the terms of the unilateral declarations. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the unilateral declarations and described in the appended table. In application no. 9045/18 the applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention about his allocation to a remote penal facility. The Court has examined that complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no.   9045/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see the appended table); Declares the remainder of application no.   9045/18 inadmissible. Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4103/18 12/07/2018 Yuriy Vyacheslavovich SHELUKHA 16/07/1987 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 24/03/2020 7,200     9045/18 29/01/2018 Firat Galiyevich SAMIGULLIN 27/01/1959 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020 27/02/2020 4,950     13274/18 25/02/2018 Dmitriy Nikolayevich VELKIN 27/10/1994 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/02/2020 24/03/2020 9,450     27704/18 23/07/2018 Nikolay Yakovlevich MEZHOV 16/10/1974 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 24/03/2020 7,650     33267/18 27/06/2018 Valeriy Pavlovich ZHUKOV 10/01/1968   05/02/2019 02/04/2019 4,500     39527/18 15/10/2018 Sergey Yuryevich KLIMENKO 02/12/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 10/03/2020 6,750     39534/18 17/09/2018 Aleksey Anatolyevich GOLUBYATNIKOV 23/07/1981 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 13/03/2020 8,100     42585/18 17/08/2018 Ivan Aleksandrovich ZEMKIN 08/10/1988 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 16/03/2020 6,525     44278/18 22/10/2018 Ivan Aleksandrovich KRESHTOPA 02/05/1989 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 13/03/2020 4,500   56221/18 12/11/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich KAZAVKOV 18/04/1978 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 13/03/2020 6,525   59308/18 27/11/2018 Nikolay Mikhaylovich FEDOTOV 20/11/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/02/2020 17/03/2020 7,200   7943/19 10/01/2019 Marat Gasanovich KURBANOV 04/11/1985 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/02/2020 24/03/2020 7,200   9085/19 26/01/2019 Omar Ismailovich MAMMAYEV 01/04/1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   21/01/2020 11/03/2020 4,500   10512/19 07/02/2019 Denis Borisovich SOLODOV 01/10/1984 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 11/03/2020 6,075   19009/19 13/05/2019 Farkhad Rustamzhanovich KARIMOV 05/06/1981 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020 10/03/2020 4,500   25094/19 22/04/2019 Sergey Aleksandrovich ROZHNEV 08/01/1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/02/2020 19/03/2020 5,850   32728/19 05/06/2019 Irik Ralifovich IKHSANOV 15/04/1986 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020 10/03/2020 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.